Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Brandis v. Corbell in the lawyering stakes

By johnboy - 10 October 2013 31

The ABC has word that the Federales are going to take the ACT Gay Marriage laws to the High Court for striking down just as soon as we make them:

The Federal Government plans to challenge ACT same-sex marriage laws in the High Court when the territory enacts legislation.

The ACT Labor Government expects the law to pass with the support of Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury when the ACT Legislative Assembly sits later this month.

If so, the first same-sex marriages could happen as early as December.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell says it is disappointing that the Federal Government will be challenging the laws.

If your gay marriage in the interim gets struck down Simon’s offering a civil union.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
31 Responses to
Brandis v. Corbell in the lawyering stakes
1
PantsMan 9:15 pm
10 Oct 13
#

Let’s remember that the ACT will be represented by our new Solicitor General, who turned up on the wrong day in his first foray to the High Court: http://the-riotact.com/high-court-to-act-solicitor-general-why-are-you-here/68353

Report this comment

2
Thumper 8:17 am
11 Oct 13
#

As I said previously, why are we pissing into the wind on this issue?

Political dickswinging by Corbell, nothing more.

Report this comment

3
Roundhead89 9:09 am
11 Oct 13
#

Corbell has to realise that the political tide has gone out federally on this issue. A window was opened at the Labor conference in 2012 when most delegates wanted to have a binding vote in favour however Paul Howse and the AWU, Joe De Bruiyn and the SDA, and the faction leaders did a last minute deal to kill the resolution and keep the conscience vote in order to protect Gillard who opposed gay marriage. The window of opportunity was slammed shut by Labor, and now that the Libs are in office it will remain shut for a very long time.

Report this comment

4
howeph 9:41 am
11 Oct 13
#

Thumper said :

why are we pissing into the wind on this issue?

Because it’s a matter of principle? To remove discrimination? Because it’s an election promise?

I think you’re wrong. The winds are blowing at our back on this one. It’s the Federal Government that’s pissing into the wind. The majority of Australians support marriage reform. Other state governments (NSW and Tas I think) have their own legislation in the works. Governments around the Western world have already brought in their own reforms. It’s just a matter of time.

Report this comment

5
howeph 9:44 am
11 Oct 13
#

Roundhead89 said :

Corbell has to realise that the political tide has gone out federally on this issue.

Yes. The Feds have dropped the ball. The ACT government held back it’s legislation to see if the Federal Government would take care of it – they didn’t. So now they are bringing it forward as a Territory issue.

The issue hasn’t gone away, which is what your comment implies.

Report this comment

6
Thumper 9:54 am
11 Oct 13
#

howeph said :

Thumper said :

why are we pissing into the wind on this issue?

Because it’s a matter of principle? To remove discrimination? Because it’s an election promise?

I think you’re wrong. The winds are blowing at our back on this one. It’s the Federal Government that’s pissing into the wind. The majority of Australians support marriage reform. Other state governments (NSW and Tas I think) have their own legislation in the works. Governments around the Western world have already brought in their own reforms. It’s just a matter of time.

I’m all for gay marraige.

This is a Corbell stunt. He could have introduced when Gillard was PM but that would have looked very inconvenient when she did exactly the same as the current government is about to do, that is, crush it.

I’m all for negotiations but political point scoring is not the way to go.

Report this comment

7
watto23 10:01 am
11 Oct 13
#

I’m still trying to see how its an issue myself, other than for political gain only, which is why its sad to see governments dragging their feet. Its only an issue because of petty minded selfish people who feel because they have a different set of beliefs, we should all have to follow them.

I still ask how does having a gay family next door to you where the parents are married or not affect your life in any way meaningful.
Just like their are many married and unmarried straight couples living next door to people.

Note how the Federal government is not even going to try and pass legislation to overrule, because it wouldn’t pass, and thus resort to the high court.

Report this comment

8
PantsMan 10:53 am
11 Oct 13
#

Corbell is just responding to the wishes of the people who voted for him. All 1909 of them.

Report this comment

9
chewy14 11:18 am
11 Oct 13
#

howeph said :

Roundhead89 said :

Corbell has to realise that the political tide has gone out federally on this issue.

Yes. The Feds have dropped the ball. The ACT government held back it’s legislation to see if the Federal Government would take care of it – they didn’t. So now they are bringing it forward as a Territory issue.

The issue hasn’t gone away, which is what your comment implies.

Please, do you honestly believe they were waiting for the Feds? They simply didnt want to embarrass their own Federal leadership at the time. It’s completely transparent what they are trying to do here and its just as much about political point scoring as it is about so called equality.

This should really be decided at a federal level and if the government is going to move against discrimination then it should remove it against everyone, not just homosexuals. Civil unions for anyone that wants them.

Report this comment

10
HiddenDragon 11:31 am
11 Oct 13
#

George, we (really, really) need the gay wedding dollars, so please leave us alone – and having the weddings within easy driving distance of Parliament House will save on politicians’ expenses claims when their same-sex-couple friends get spliced. In the meantime, can we have legal aid for this?

Report this comment

11
DJ 11:55 am
11 Oct 13
#

Unless I am missing something here, I can’t see how any gay couples who get married in the ACT before Tony Abbott tries to force his Christian views on Australia will have their marriages ‘invalidated’ as George Brandis says. They might be able to stop future marriages, but I’m pretty sure the courts won’t be acting as the Liberal Party’s bitch any time soon. Just saying.

They would have to introduce laws that state that people cannot get married to people of the same sex. This would possibly contravene anti-discrimination laws.

The basic argument will be that although the Commonwealth has the power to make laws as to marriage. The current wording of the Marriage Act only covers unions between a man and a woman. This leaves the States free to pass their own laws until such time as an incompatible Commonwealth law exists. Which imo no such laws currently exist, and retrospectivity would be unlikely to be enforced. The High Court had said that laws remain valid until they ruled invalid, and what is done whilst they are valid is not void ab initio.

It’s quite ingenious really. I’m surprised that the ACT will be the first to run it.

Report this comment

12
howeph 12:15 pm
11 Oct 13
#

chewy14 said :

Please, do you honestly believe they were waiting for the Feds? They simply didnt want to embarrass their own Federal leadership at the time.

I don’t disagree much with what you said above.

Whilst they were waiting earlier on in the term to see which way the Federal parliament would go, at the end, I agree, they did hold off so that they didn’t further embarrass the embattled Federal Labor Party in the run up to the election.

Perhaps that was to give the federal Labor party a better chance for re-election so that when the ACT parliament did bring on their legislation in the next term it would be less likely to be blocked? If so then it is an example of a perfectly legitimate use of politics and no one should be surprised if politicians engage in it.

chewy14 said :

This should really be decided at a federal level…

Yes, ideally it should. But the Feds have dropped the ball. A conservative government is in power which is highly unlikely to do anything on the issue; therefore more progressive state and territory governments have a perfectly legitimate right to act.

chewy14 said :

… and if the government is going to move against discrimination then it should remove it against everyone, not just homosexuals. Civil unions for anyone that wants them.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Report this comment

13
astrojax 12:36 pm
11 Oct 13
#

DJ said :

Unless I am missing something here, I can’t see how any gay couples who get married in the ACT before Tony Abbott tries to force his Christian views on Australia will have their marriages ‘invalidated’ as George Brandis says. They might be able to stop future marriages, but I’m pretty sure the courts won’t be acting as the Liberal Party’s bitch any time soon. Just saying.

They would have to introduce laws that state that people cannot get married to people of the same sex. This would possibly contravene anti-discrimination laws.

The basic argument will be that although the Commonwealth has the power to make laws as to marriage. The current wording of the Marriage Act only covers unions between a man and a woman. This leaves the States free to pass their own laws until such time as an incompatible Commonwealth law exists. Which imo no such laws currently exist, and retrospectivity would be unlikely to be enforced. The High Court had said that laws remain valid until they ruled invalid, and what is done whilst they are valid is not void ab initio.

It’s quite ingenious really. I’m surprised that the ACT will be the first to run it.

this, and the wedding dollars – go simon!

Report this comment

14
housebound 1:27 pm
11 Oct 13
#

It’s a shame Corbell and Barr had to go about it this way. I can’t see any Federal government of any colour being happy to relinquish control to make laws over anything. I am a rabid decentralist, so on those ideological grounds, I say go for the challenge. Who needs uniformity on anything? Why can’t the states differ?

On the other hand, Barr has a history of total intolerance towards people who don’t agree with him – it doesn’t seem to matter what the issue is. Therefore, I am nervous about any new law he proposes and, for this one, what it will mean for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Who will be the first minister (or imam or rabbi) to be dealt with for not wanting to preside over a gay wedding?

Report this comment

15
familydude72 1:37 pm
11 Oct 13
#

It will be interesting to see if Zed represents the rights of the territory on this

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site